On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Marty Alchin wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather see an argument name that tries to tell users
> what to supply, rather than solely trying to be true to the algorithm.
> Obviously, the goals should coincide, but focusing on the supplied
> value brings another option t
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Kurt Grandis wrote:
> cull_interval or cull_period would absolutely be the most accurate
> description in terms of the algorithm's operation. My contention is that
> parameter name would be confusing to all but those who have seen the actual
> underlying culling a
cull_interval or cull_period would absolutely be the most accurate
description in terms of the algorithm's operation. My contention is that
parameter name would be confusing to all but those who have seen the actual
underlying culling algorithm; what if we convert to a random cache culler?.
All the
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Kurt Grandis wrote:
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9986
>
>
> This ticket proposes reconciling the code's parameter name, cull_frequency,
> with the docs' cull_probability; the ticket proposes standardizing on
> cull_probability, which I think would be mis
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9986
This ticket proposes reconciling the code's parameter name, cull_frequency,
with the docs' cull_probability; the ticket proposes standardizing on
cull_probability, which I think would be misleading.
The code where cull_frequency actually does its magic
